Thank you for the encouragement John!
Should the group decide to move in the suggested direction I will start my
queries.
Best,
_don
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:30 AM, John J. Boyer <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
Hi Don,
We certainly need a lawyer to look into the licensing matter. I hope
we'll be hearing much more from you.
John
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:20:18AM -0600, Donald Winiecki wrote:
At this point I am not much known to the group, but look forward to theif
prospect of earning a place in time.
FWIW, I too would be in favor of an *ad lib* organization and would nod
asked to participate.and
I am not a lawyer, but as a sociologist who often works with engineers
scientists, I have done some research involving engineering, science andthe
the law, and I belong to a relevant special interest group (SIG) within
American Sociological Assn (ASA). I can check with fellow SIG membersfor
lawyers who might consider this as a *pro bono* service.tolga.karatas2014@xxxxxxxxx
Best,
_don
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:37 AM, tolga karatas <
notwrote:
all;
an lib Louis organisation would be good; but precautions need to be
taken; in the sence that a professional lawyer needs to be consulted;
for the organisation;
I'm in favour for an organisation to be set up for Lib Louis;
Regards;
Tolga;
On 22/06/2016, Michael Whapples <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John I would suggest if taking your route, that future contributions
then are given with full rights to the organisation then this could
agreescome up in the future as the organisation would have the rights to
change the license.
However there are words of caution attached to this.
1. The organisation needs to behave in a way that the community
etc.with. This would be to stick to certain principles when relicensing,
The2. Contributors need to be happy to grant these rights. You may find
that some decide not to contribute instead of granting those rights.
notbehaviour of the organisation may influence this, but some may just
thinkbe happy with granting full rights to an organisation.
This probably would not change much for existing contributions, I
stillyou really would need to get the permission of the contributors.
From what I understand, permission to change the library source code
back to LGPL2.1 has been recieved and it is only the tables which
(or athave LGPL3 contributions. As tables are easy to remove, the removal
option is much more practical.
Personally I would go down the route of removing any LGPL3 tables
LGPL2.1),least any you cannot get explicit permission to change back to
inand this is regardless of setting up a organisation for the projects
notthe future. You might decide to distribute these LGPL3 tables in a
separate optional package people could download, then those who do
canwant LGPL3 stuff ignore that optional package and those who want it
amdownload it.
I am no legal expert and so I might be taking a cautious approach. I
personjust uncertain that a no response can be assumed to be that the
organizationswas uncontactable, additional rights need to be granted, but to not
grant them requires no action as it is no change.
Michael Whapples
On 21/06/2016 23:27, John Gardner wrote:
Jamie, there is plenty of case law permitting actions by
Jameswho
faithhave not heard from all stakeholders provided they have made a good
effort to reach them.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
organization.Teh
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:29 PM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for aliblouis
that's(was: Licensing of liblouis tables )
Two points of clarification:
1. There is definitely a difference between GPL 3 and LGPL 3, but
whereacademic here and thus not worth discussing.
2. Even if an organisation existed, you cannot relicense anything
can'talwaysthe contributor has not agreed. Majority is not relevant. This will
theirbe the case unless all contributors sign an agreement which licenses
code under specific conditions to said organisation. Again, if you
rights.get agreement from someone, your only option is to remove the
contribution. This is not anything complex; it is simple legal
john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent from a mobile device
On 22 Jun 2016, at 1:30 AM, John Gardner <
liblouiswrote:
Larry, historically, John Boyer borrowed from BRLTTY to get
versionLGPL,started, and we got their permission to change their GPL license to
software.so that liblouis could be used with any software, not just GPL
A few years later the LGPL license upgraded from version 2.1 to
my3. None of us realized that LGPL3 had become a great deal more
restrictive than the last LGPL2 version. I have read LGPL3 and to
LGPL.non-legal mind, I cannot tell any difference now between GPL and
listre-licenseAmazon wants to use liblouis but is not willing to use GPL or LGPL3
software for good reason. So Christian and I were convinced to
anything with LGPL3 license to LGPL2.1. We posted requests on the
personand contacted every contributor whose address we had. To this point
everyone who responded has agreed to have his/her contributions
relicensed to LGPL2.1, but we have been unable to contact every
tableslisted as a contributor, apparently including authors of some
really islicensed as LGPL3. They remain in the archive as LGPL3 There
softwareno
liblouis organization that can make the decision to relicense
insteadwhose authors are not reachable.
It is probably time for liblouis to organize itself into some
legally-defined organization so that such decisions can be made
putof relying on Christian and a few other long-time contributors to
Johntheir necks on the line. The major copyright holders are ViewPlus,
founders, andBoyer's company, and APH. ViewPlus and John Boyer are the
responsibilityotherAPH was accepted later as co-owner when it took major development
responsibility for BrailleBlaster and liblouisUTDML. In absence of
guidance, I propose that these three organizations take
contributors.of
drawing up a charter proposal with input from other major
In myThen put it to a vote of currently active liblouis participants.
internationalopinion, the organization should have a relatively small
processexecutive board selected from current major contributors and a
withfor updating that board from time to time. Any proposal should win
support of a strong majority - we sure wouldn't want to start off
believesome serious unhappiness in this excellent group of people. I
Wouldthat Amazon will be willing to contribute to startup expenses.
non-profit,APH
be willing to accept contributions for this project until the
organization is able to accept its own funding? As a large
LarryAPH is the obvious choice for this role.
If anybody on the list has better ideas for forming a liblouis
organization, please post them!
John Gardner
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
(was:Skutchan
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:10 AM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Licensing of liblouis tables
intentMove the library to LGPLv2.1)
It is a shame someone even has to ask this question. The whole
Whyof
Liblouis is to help make quality braille available on all devices.
hinderingshould someone who wants to use it have to jump through hoops?
This licensing question is tricky and annoying and results in
V3?the mission.
What are our options for smoothing this process?
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Christian Egli
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:59 AM
To: Mulcahy, Marc <mmulcahy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Gardner <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bangs, Jon
<jbang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Korn, Peter <pkorn@xxxxxxxxxx>;
liblouis-liblouisxml <liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Licensing of liblouis tables (was:
Move the library to LGPLv2.1)
"Mulcahy, Marc" <mmulcahy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"John Gardner" <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:How can we tell which tables are licensed under LGPL V2 Vs. LGPL
If I understand Christian's post, liblouis is now licensed as
LGPL2.1 except for some of the tables.
probably beWe'll need additional languages eventually, but UEB would
toenough to get us going.Well, currently only the source code of liblouis has been changed
respect toLGPLv2.1. The tables are all still LGPLv3. Two remarks with
copyrightthat:
1. Somebody needs to go through all the tables, look at the
list ofstatement and the revision history and compare this with the
wherecontributors that have agreed to re-licensing. Pick the tables
Iwe have permission to change the license. Send me this list and
holidayswill change the licenses. If you do this before the summer
methere is a chance that this will go in the 3.0 release. Contact
theif
Sinceyou need help with that.
2. I'm not a layer but as far as I know the LGPL is about linking.
the tables are not linked to your program you might be OK. On
pagesother hand this might be slippery terrain.
Hope that helps
Christian
--
Christian Egli
Swiss Library for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Print Disabled
Grubenstrasse 12, CH-8045 Zürich, Switzerland
-----
Tag der offenen Tuer: Es war einmal...
Die SBS laedt Sie herzlich ein: 25. Juni 2016 von 9 bis 16 Uhr.
Mehr Informationen erhalten Sie unter www.sbs.ch/offenetuer For a
description of the software, to download it and links to project
projectgo
to http://liblouis.org z + b z pj 0 Z v+Z b K- -For a description of the software, to download it and links to
- m 剹h +(
ŠÚuë ®*mŠ‰è~Ø^²‡íÁªÞ¶‡hÂyhiØjweŠy,¶Šk¢7œ¶– zÈ(¶ˆm¶Ÿÿ–&å¢è¬¢¸
For a description of the software, to download it and links topages go to http://liblouis.org
��u� �*m���~�^������h�yhiحjwe�y,��k�7����z�(��m����&��org=
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://liblouis.org
project pages go to http://liblouis.org
--
John J. Boyer; President,
AbilitiesSoft, Inc.
Email: john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Website: http://www.abilitiessoft.org
Status: 501(C)(3) Nonprofit
Location: Madison, Wisconsin USA
Mission: To develop softwares and provide STEM services for people with
disabilities which are available at no cost.
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://liblouis.org